I’m placing this in GD since it’s a religious, (or lack thereof) subject. Mods, please move as you see fit.
Do atheists have a responsibility to challenge belief and superstition or should each person be left to their own revelations? Certainly, it seems that on the societal scale at least that the reduction in fundamentalism and illogical beliefs would do us some good. It is not this large scale though that I’m concerned with in this post, but rather the personal one. Philosophically, I have to oppose actions that cause another person harm or distress; yet the disillusionment of a long held belief structure, regardless of later enlightenment, certainly causes significant distress to the recipient. When this happens to those who we are close to the nail can be driven rather painfully home. Indulge me a moment with a personal anecdote and perhaps I can illustrate better.
Over the last year or so I’ve had several theological conversations with my mother. In all ways she is an intelligent, competent, and educated person. She possesses a master’s degree, and is fairly well read. She also is a devout believer, and until recently never saw the cognitive dissonance she is employing in maintaining the two systems simultaneously. After a few rounds where I knocked over the usual tired old religious arguments, she decided to not have any more discussions. Her explanation was that it was simply “too painful” to have her world view shaken any further at her age. A phone call to her long term priest to settle a minor point about creationism left her nearly in tears when he sided with me that the stories were allegorical and in no means understood to be the literal truth.
She is unwilling or unable to deal with the losses in life and her own mortality without the pleasant fiction of religion; and she isn’t alone. Many people I meet and talk to about this topic end up in the same boat. They can’t escape the simple logic; and may possess doubts, but cannot allow themselves to take the further step for fear of the unknown. While this self imposed insulation may seem harmless, I must balance it against a larger duty to fight such ignorance wherever it turns up. On the other hand, causing such distress to loved ones can be deeply unsettling and disturbing to the relationships I value.
So do we have an obligation to challenge belief at every opportunity? If we pick and choose in effort to spare the feelings of those we love, do we do them a disservice?
I’m not sure about the idea of a responsibility to challenge someone else’s beliefs. I think it’s wise to challenge those beliefs when they have harmful real-world implications, but there’s no way it’s a good idea or a good use of your time to contradict people’s religious beliefs constantly or at every opportunity. That sounds more like jerkish contrarianism.
I guess everyone has their own preference as to how they handle the type of scenario that you described. My own preference has always been to determine first what goal I’m pursuing and calibrate my response.
If someone is espousing an unsupported belief that negatively impacts another person, then I will challenge that belief with gusto.
If not, then I will only present my case when asked and only after warning them that it takes some time for me to really explain my position and in the process, I might make them uncomfortable about some of their beliefs. If they persist, that’s the only time I will really lay it all out but always being polite and cognizant of the fact that a majority will still take it personally despite my warnings.
Atheists do not necessarily have a responsibility to change people’s belief per se. However, if you are an secular humanist, a skeptic, or a member or Richard Dawkin’s fan club, other philosophical belief systems closely associated with atheism may oblige you ethically and/or morally to persuade people that God is silly.
P.S. I’m a secular humanist and a skeptic, and God is silly.
Somewhere right now someone on a religious board is asking the exact same thing, except they are talking about the responsibility of people in his/her religion to bring the truth of the Gospel, or Islam, or whatever to all those delusional atheists.
I am not a atheist, but I think the responsibility of challenging the beliefs of others is the same for atheists as it is for theists; that is, no one has any. Even if we assume as a given that atheism, or for that matter any other opinion on the subject of God, is correct, why is belief regarding the existence and nature of God the sort of thing that must be corrected whereas plenty of other fictions are perfectly acceptable to leave unchallenged.
Now, that’s not to say that some ideas related to religion aren’t harmful, like how many Christians are pretty vehemently anti-gay. But even in a case like that, one doesn’t have to challenge the idea of the existence of God to challenge that idea nor does even convincing someone that God does not exist mean that they will abandon those anti-gay ideas; in fact, one of the most rabidly anti-gay people I’ve met was a very vocal atheist.
I would say that the best approach to any of this sort of thing isn’t an appeal to the intellect because it simply isn’t an intellectual type of discussion, particularly as pointed out by the OP. From my perspective, I love talking about what I believe and why and I’ll happily engage in such discussions as long as the other person is reasonable, but it’s never to try to change that person’s mind. The most success I’ve had in “converting” people has always been by simply living my life and people approaching me and asking me about it.
I really think we’ll all be better off if we can try to find our common ground and pursue the best answers regardless of those underlying beliefs. The duty to fight ignorance is on that level, of fighting those ideas that have an inherently destructive impact on society, not in challenging the subjective fundamentals.
I suppose it depends whether you think religion is a great force for evil, or whether you think it is a delusion that is mostly harmless, and, although it has sometimes had evil effects, has probably about equally often had good ones. Personally I lean to the latter camp, and feel virtually no responsibility to try to talk people out of religious belief per se.
Particular beliefs that people take their religion to support, such as creationism, may be a different matter. Creationism is an example of a pernicious religious dogma (and there are many others), and I guess I do think we have a responsibility to try to get people to give up creationism (and other specific pernicious dogmas). But, as your mother’s priest affirmed, it is perfectly possible for someone to be religious, and, indeed, Christian, without being creationist, and many people are. Trying to get people to give up their religion altogether in order to get them to give up creationism is probably not a very effective strategy.
I figure that atheists have a certain responsibility to speak in opposition to theism to counter the constant pro-theism propaganda, and to underline that atheists actually exist.
The difference being that the atheist’s beliefs match reality, and that the atheist wouldn’t be concerned with pushing his atheism in the first place if the believers weren’t constantly trying to force their fantasies down everyone else’s throat. Atheism is by nature generally reactive; it only really exists as a named concept in the first place in reaction to theism. Nobody’s an agoblinist, because goblin-believers aren’t trying to write belief in goblins into the law.
Far too often, I run into people (either live or on a board) who insist that a god of some sort demands that they do/not do certain things, and I should also adhere to that. That’s when it starts to be fun.
I’ve got way too much going on in my own life to spend time worrying about what other people believe. Really, I’m exhausted all the time and now I’m supposed to start arguments?
What makes you think she isn’t, or won’t? Or that someone won’t be able to do unethical things to her because of her false beliefs? Holding irrational beliefs and indulging in bad judgement to protect those beliefs results in bad decision making, both of the moral and practical variety.
I think that’s mostly the right idea, but it’s not sufficient when other people are aggressively spreading their own beliefs, instituting social policies and strictures based on them, and lying about you.
“Well, no, that’s a fantasy - God is reality.” Etc.
That’s what the response would be.
In other words, you’re simply presuming your premise. You’re not going to have a constructive conversation with a believer, since his/her entire way of thinking starts with belief in God, and springs from there. At best, you might convince someone that they can’t know for sure.
Saying that your beliefs match reality is just as arrogant and evangelical as they are. They would say the exact same thing.
Instead of trying to push your beliefs down their throats in response, why not simply say “please don’t try to push your beliefs down my throat.”?
Should we write atheism into law? Ban religion?
I don’t think so. The correct reaction is to leave people to believe what they want.
That, I have to admit, does not really work. Particularly not with people who think they are required to spread their beliefs for the good of everybody (which brings us back to the OP, who’s unfortunately proposing something similar).
Why would an atheist have a greater responsibility for religious activism than any given humanist would have for any other issue? The way I see it, my lack of god-belief has a lot *less *potential impact on the world than my belief that gays should be allowed to get married, that women should be paid equal wages to men, and that white privilege should be eliminated.
Regardless of the potential impact of a belief, however, there is *no *obligation to proselytize. About religion, racism, gay rights, anything. People have zero responsibility to be activists. No matter what a person’s pet issues are, you can’t oblige them to be a fighter. It’s a bonus when people can muster up the energy to do so. But eventually, many/most activists will burn out. No matter how many times they argue (even on just a single message board) or how many people they eventually convince to believe them, there will always be more ignorant folks and selfish people (and trolls) to overcome. Eventually, it just becomes too much. You can only slog uphill so many times before you realize how truly Sisyphean the task is.
I can’t fault someone who opts out of activism due to exhaustion, or even just anticipated exhaustion. I’ve been there/done that myself–I ran off a shitload of old friends in college due to my atheist activism, and I’m SO done with that noise.
Nonsense. My disbelief in gods is logically consistent and conforms to everything we know about the world; that’s the opposite of the believers. you are pretending to a false intellectual equivalency between atheism and theism.
Because they’ll ignore it.
No.
In other words atheists should just sit quietly in a corner while the believers write their fantasies into the law and push them wherever they can. And they should stay quiet while the believers either deny that atheists even exist or talk about how they are all Satanic monsters.
Because they are targets of that religious activism. Atheists are hated, loathed and feared by the believers; constantly demonized. It’s collective self defense.